Russia-Ukrainian War

[Dinar]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-weapons-industry-unprepared-for-a-china-conflict-report-says-11674479916?mod=hp_lead_pos4

 

Left unsaid is that we can't handle another 12 months of the war in Ukraine.  

[no_free_lunch]

2 hours ago, Dinar said:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-weapons-industry-unprepared-for-a-china-conflict-report-says-11674479916?mod=hp_lead_pos4

 

Left unsaid is that we can't handle another 12 months of the war in Ukraine.  

 

We can afford it. Its less than half a percent of gdp for most countries. Meanwhile we are building up our armaments industries.  We do need European countries to carry a greater load but yes its quite doable.  The alternative of course is to sign some peace treaty and Russia and allies learns they can get away with this shit.  

[Xerxes]

Nothing to do with people getting away or not getting away. Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and George Bush all got away from it. The world didn’t stop turning. 

 

Support should continue (or not continue) for the right reason: geopolitical, humanitarian and economical (ramp up the war industry or not). The combination of these vs. alternative. 

[ValueArb]

43 minutes ago, Xerxes said:

Nothing to do with people getting away or not getting away. Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and George Bush all got away from it. The world didn’t stop turning. 

 

Support should continue (or not continue) for the right reason: geopolitical, humanitarian and economical (ramp up the war industry or not). The combination of these vs. alternative. 

every dictator has a cost/benefits model in their head. If they see a worst case scenario for Putin end with him still controlling Crimea and Donbas they are going to be more likely to commit to their own invasions think the west will tire quickly like they did with Putin.

 

this is all theoretical anyways given there is no way Ukraine is going to agree to any peace deal with Russian troops still in the Don Bas or Crimea. And now way should we end our support no matter how long it takes. 

[Spekulatius]

Operation Blau 2.0:

Some good stuff getting some action - Abrahams, Leopards, Bradley's etc.

 

I think Abrahams were sent to force Olaf Stolz to sent Leo's as well since he had the lame excuse he didn't want to go alone...

https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-updates-germany-approves-sending-of-leopard-2-tanks/a-64506202

[Xerxes]

Every American general’s wet dream has been to see M1 Abrams roaming the fields of Eastern Europe. Even if they are symbolic to allow to more available Leopoldo get released. 
 

I think the purges in Kiev, the secret (not so secret) visit by CIA director and the tank approval are all linked. Message to Zelensky: clean up the corruption in your government. 
 

PS: There is a lot of good commentary on line about Abrams. It is clear that they would be “few months” away at the very least given all the logistics that is needed to support them vs the readily available diesel engine powered Leopolds. 

Edited January 25, 2023 by Xerxes

[John Hjorth]

The German decision about the Leopard tanks are all over the place in the News Media today. I think this message from Pearson Engineering is important as well.

[CGJB]

German tanks supporting Nazis in the Ukraine. We've seen this before.

Edited January 25, 2023 by CGJB

[no_free_lunch]

A nazi country with a Jewish prime minister?  Hmm...

[CGJB]

For years the media reported on the Nazis in the Ukraine. Though they would like for everyone to forget that fact. See: https://www.moonofalabama.org/2022/04/azovreplist.html

[no_free_lunch]

There are nazis in America too. See Charlottesville,  the kkk, that is reported in the media too. 

[Blugolds]

2 hours ago, CGJB said:

For years the media reported on the Nazis in the Ukraine. Though they would like for everyone to forget that fact. See: https://www.moonofalabama.org/2022/04/azovreplist.html

 

Has been discussed numerous times, its one battalion. Like minded folks can be found in every military in the world probably, and when the wolves are knocking at the door Im not going to ask the guy in the foxhole next to me what his ideologies are as long as his gun is pointed down range. 

 

US Military has documented skinheads as well as a significant number of MS13 gangsters.

 

Yes Nazi are bad, but it doesn’t detract from Russias actions, the real issue/problem. 

Edited January 26, 2023 by Blugolds11

[no_free_lunch]

Thanks bluegold. I see it as you describe.  They are just parroting Russia propaganda and to slander an entire country to get a fu king sound bite does not sit well with me. 

 

Nevertheless wait 1 week and the same garbage will resurface. 

Edited January 26, 2023 by no_free_lunch

[WayWardCloud]

Anyone calling it "the" Ukraine a year into the conflict disqualifies themselves to have an opinion in my book. Literally can't even name correctly the place they think they understand so much better than everyone else, please

Edited January 26, 2023 by WayWardCloud

[Xerxes]

Ehhhh ... What happened here, folks ...

I thought we were talking about M1 Abrams

[Warner]

The Russians are more concerned with the followers of Bandera. 

A bit ironic though as they likely killed more Poles than Soviets in the WW2 era

Using the Nazi term is just a way to stoke Russian nationalism for a common known enemy of the past. It's nothing more

[formthirteen]

 

4 hours ago, Warner said:

Using the Nazi term is just a way to stoke Russian nationalism for a common known enemy of the past. It's nothing more

 

Using the Nazi term is also a way of stopping some people from thinking. Basically the same tactic as calling someone H****r or a r****t. It works in politics, internet forums, special military operations, and everywhere by short circuiting the human brain. By the way, I think I have found the next Berkshire Hathaway. It's a penny stock, but don't let that fool you. I also know a couple of guys from Oxford who write like Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger and who invest all my money. I can introduce you to them. There's also this telecom company run by a cable-cowboy copycat in Latin America that blah, blah,

 

Quote

“Thinking is difficult, that’s why most people judge.”

― C.G. Jung

Edited January 26, 2023 by formthirteen

[Blugolds]

8 hours ago, Xerxes said:

Ehhhh ... What happened here, folks ...

I thought we were talking about M1 Abrams

 

 

Yes back to the topic at hand. Did you see the German interview with Petraeus? He explained why the M1 shipping to theatre was unlikely (he didnt say absolutely not) due to the complexity of the weapon and maintenance. I have seen the M1 and watched many videos of teams operating but I guess naively did not consider maintenance requirements on the battlefield. 

 

I have no first hand knowledge of the Honeywell AGT1500 gas turbine powering the tank. I do have first hand knowledge of the GE LM6000 which is a turbo shaft aeroderivative. Different applications for sure, but also similarities in that the maintenance on these is very particular, very specialized and when running properly are amazing, however when there are issues, you aren’t gonna pull off a “farmer fix” with a pair of vice grips and bailing twine. (My experience is that they are very finicky and very regularly have “issues”) You have to have specialized technicians perform the work to spec. Even when operating perfectly, the required maintenance interval is relatively small. Think of it like aircraft that need “annuals” at X amount of hours. If you think about that, to take the tank out for a day or so, it has to return to be serviced for several days potentially, by an entire specialized crew. I saw one report that for every hour of operation on the M1 hour meter it requires 8hrs of maintenance. There is a reason that they have entire crews of “system maintainers” aka mechanics to service these. When you consider the hydraulics, electronics, optics, weapons etc and the maintenance, parts, and logistics of servicing these machines just to operate and compare that to the Leopard Diesel its easy to see which option makes the most sense. I saw an article that said the US will send 31 M1 to Ukraine but unsure how much they will be used or in what capacity, perhaps power perceived is power achieved in that respect. Or it was a symbolic shipment that gave the green light to Germany, I don’t know. 

 

I have seen in person, annuals conducted on Airbus EC145 with dual turboshafts and what was required was staggering. The tools, space, cleanliness required to do basic maintenance was amazing and it’s hard for me to comprehend that being done in theatre when a simpler option is available that Ukraine is more familiar with. 

[Spekulatius]

10 hours ago, Xerxes said:

Ehhhh ... What happened here, folks ...

I thought we were talking about M1 Abrams

I count 31 Abrahams, 14 Leo's, maybe some more Leo's from the Poles. Any ideas how many they will get? It will also take a while to get them operational.

 

Guderian knew his stuff and said " Nicht kleckern sondern klotzen" - as it referred to tanks.  This means  loosely that tanks should be used en masse and not piecemeal like the French did in 1940.

 

I think the best use of tanks is to use them to severe the land bridge to Crimea and get the Russian troops there bottled up there and destroyed. Taking out the bridge to Crimea would be necessary as well to accomplish this goal.

Edited January 26, 2023 by Spekulatius

[Xerxes]

1 hour ago, Blugolds11 said:

 

 

Yes back to the topic at hand. Did you see the German interview with Petraeus? He explained why the M1 shipping to theatre was unlikely (he didnt say absolutely not) due to the complexity of the weapon and maintenance. I have seen the M1 and watched many videos of teams operating but I guess naively did not consider maintenance requirements on the battlefield. 

 

I have no first hand knowledge of the Honeywell AGT1500 gas turbine powering the tank. I do have first hand knowledge of the GE LM6000 which is a turbo shaft aeroderivative. Different applications for sure, but also similarities in that the maintenance on these is very particular, very specialized and when running properly are amazing, however when there are issues, you aren’t gonna pull off a “farmer fix” with a pair of vice grips and bailing twine. (My experience is that they are very finicky and very regularly have “issues”) You have to have specialized technicians perform the work to spec. Even when operating perfectly, the required maintenance interval is relatively small. Think of it like aircraft that need “annuals” at X amount of hours. If you think about that, to take the tank out for a day or so, it has to return to be serviced for several days potentially, by an entire specialized crew. I saw one report that for every hour of operation on the M1 hour meter it requires 8hrs of maintenance. There is a reason that they have entire crews of “system maintainers” aka mechanics to service these. When you consider the hydraulics, electronics, optics, weapons etc and the maintenance, parts, and logistics of servicing these machines just to operate and compare that to the Leopard Diesel its easy to see which option makes the most sense. I saw an article that said the US will send 31 M1 to Ukraine but unsure how much they will be used or in what capacity, perhaps power perceived is power achieved in that respect. Or it was a symbolic shipment that gave the green light to Germany, I don’t know. 

 

I have seen in person, annuals conducted on Airbus EC145 with dual turboshafts and what was required was staggering. The tools, space, cleanliness required to do basic maintenance was amazing and it’s hard for me to comprehend that being done in theatre when a simpler option is available that Ukraine is more familiar with. 

 

We both seem to have gas turbine background. Yours I think is in industrial application and more hands-on than mine. I think it is exactly as you say, or as Petraeus framed it : "jet engines with armours around them". And jet engines needs maintenance.

 

The other thing aside logistics, I think is the military doctrine (how to use it). These are not going to be used (I think) in the same way the Russian used their tanks advanving toward Kiev. Abrams are powerfull machines but if misused, or without proper infantry support, they could be sitting duck as well. And this could be compounded by the maintenance requirement.

 

When the U.S. forces were dashing toward Baghdad in 2003, unlike the 1991 Gulf War, they were advancing on a narrow path, which really exposed their flanks and overstrechted their lines of communications. The Americans could handle that given the training etc. and all their war planning. You are not going to see that level of complexity of operations with Ukrainians.

 

Petraeus also talked about Abrams being the 'core' around which battalions and brigades are built. That notion of the tank serving as a 'backbone' to a brigade may be well understood in the West as a doctrine, but the Ukrainian military may not be there in terms of doctrine.

 

So to me, it is less so about Ukrainian being able to operate these machine. They are afterall an extremely industrious folks. But more to do with their field commanders understanding how to use them. The last thing Pentagon wants it to see Abrams getting disabled and sitting duck around Bakhmut in an artillery kill zone.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Xerxes]

2 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

I count 31 Abrahams, 14 Leo's, maybe some more Leo's from the Poles. Any ideas how many they will get? It will also take a while to get them operational.

 

Guderian knew his stuff and said " Nicht kleckern sondern klotzen" - as it referred to tanks.  This means  loosely that tanks should be used en masse and not piecemeal like the French did in 1940.

 

I think the best use of tanks is to use them to severe the land bridge to Crimea and get the Russian troops there bottled up there and destroyed. Taking out the bridge to Crimea would be necessary as well to accomplish this goal.

 

I heard about 100, 31 of which are M1s.

 

I agree about the "land bridge". That said, I don't think you will see Abrams being used in Crimea directly. I think there is an unspoken understanding with the Americans in terms of priorities and objectives when it comes to Crimea. Ukraine may consider Crimea its soil, but I don't think any U.S. administration (republican or democrat) would be pushing Kiev hard to re-conquer Crimea. Air strikes against military targets are of course legitimate.

 

Besides, there is a ton to do, before even getting there. First of which is to blunt the coming Russian offensive.

 

EDIT:  we are sending 4x Leopolds ! Ukraine is saved. 

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-donate-leopard-battle-tanks-1.6725868

 

 

 

Edited January 26, 2023 by Xerxes

[james22]

An excuse to share a story:

 

Back in the mid-90s, your humble correspondent was an aircrew member, assigned to an Air Force battle management squadron.  We supported the NATO/U.N. mission in Bosnia from its earliest days; our job was to coordinate air support for peacekeeping troops on the ground.  More often that not, it was an exercise in frustration.  Local bad guys--Serb, Croats and Muslims--would sometimes open fire at allied troops on the ground.  That would bring a call for air support.

Here's how the system was supposed to work: the Tactical Air Control Party (TACP) taking fire--or attached to the unit under attack--would radio a request for close air support to our aircraft.  We would relay the request to NATO's Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC) in Vicenza, Italy, which was in charge of the air campaign.  At that point, the CAOC was supposed to approve the request, and we would direct available air assets to support the unit under fire.  

But remember, the U.N. had its thumb in the Bosnia mission as well.  Beyond the CAOC, the support request was then routed to the senior United Nations official in Zagreb, Croatia, then on to New York.  Once approved by some grandee at U.N. Headquarters, the request made its way back down the chain, through Zagreb, back to the CAOC, on to the airborne C2 element and finally to the A-10s, F-16s, Harriers, F/A-18s or whatever asset was assigned to support the folks on the ground.  

Originally, the U.N. approval was (supposedly) required for only the first CAS request; after that, the decision would be made within the military chain.  Nice theory, but in practice, the U.N. didn't want to relinquish control.  So, for much of the Bosnia mission, any request for air support still had to go through the United Nations chain.  On multiple occasions, fighters orbited overhead for more than 30 minutes while the request for CAS was considered.  By the time approval was granted, the shooting had stopped and the local thugs faded back into the countryside.  

One day, the bureaucratic nightmare became too much.  The sector patrolled by troops from Denmark was around Tuzla, the same place where Hillary Clinton claimed she came under sniper fire.  But unlike Mrs. Clinton, the Danes had been taking actual fire from the Serbs and were determined to neutralize the threat, once and for all.  On October 25, 1994, the Danish TACP reported that elements of the Nordic battalion was moving into action against the Serbs.  One of our controllers asked if they were requesting CAS.

No, the Danes told us.  We'll handle it.  

That got a lot of attention in the back end of our airplane.  The Danish TACP couldn't clear NATO fighters onto the Serb position without approval up the chain.  So, how did the plan to deal with the Serbs?  

We got the answer in short order.  Our crew capsule was equipped with a crude e-mail system that allowed us to communicate without using the intercom.  'They're bring up tanks" the controller team told us.  

In the early days of the Bosnia mission, Denmark was the only country that sent tanks as part of its military contingent.  Not light tanks or armored cars, but Leopard I main battle tanks.  As I recall, the Danes sent three Leopards to deal with the problem.  Along the way, they were engaged by a Russian-built T-55, operated by Serb forces.  It was quickly knocked out, along with a recoilless rifle.
    
Once in position, the Danish tanks pounded the Serbian position.  Officially, the Leopards fired a total of 21 rounds from their 105 mm main guns.  But a few years later, I heard a different version of events during a presentation from U.S. Navy Admiral Leighton "Snuffy" Smith, who was commander of NATO forces in Bosnia in 1994.

According to Admiral Smith, one of the Leopards, commanded by a female tanker, expended all of its 105mm ammunition against the Serb position. Smith later met with the tank crews and asked the young officer why she had fired so many rounds during that engagement.  

"Because," she said, "that was all I had." 

 

http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-lawyers-war.html

[Spekulatius]

The Abraham tanks were sent because Olaf Scholz (German chancellor ) stated that no German tanks would go on the battlefield unless US tanks go first. Quite honestly, I think it was an excuse for the Germans to not sent tanks because they didn’t want to (at least thr SPD - ruling party had this line). So this created a stalemate and now when the US announced to sent Abraham’s tanks, that excuse was negated.

 

I do think what the Ukraine needs to Leo tanks. It is lighter and way simpler to run. The diesel engine needs less fuel and can be swapped in less than 30 minutes, basically on the battlefield.

 

I don’t think the tanks will be used near Bahkmut, thatsjust a stalemate killing field with little strategic value. The Ukraine is likely to use the tanks else where and I think severing the land Bridge to Crimea seems like an obvious target. We will see in a couple of month.

Edited January 27, 2023 by Spekulatius

[Warner]

Turbine engine are easy to maintain. They are simple and easy to use. But, they need clean fuel, clean air, and a lot of fuel at sea level. They can run 500-1000 hours without significant maintenance, but at that point they need some general maintenance. ie. filter checks/replacement, nozzle replacements and so on

 

The attached pic you will see 3000 HP that weighs 785 KGS. This is something a diesel will never come close to matching.

[Pelagic]

6 hours ago, Warner said:

Turbine engine are easy to maintain. They are simple and easy to use. But, they need clean fuel, clean air, and a lot of fuel at sea level. They can run 500-1000 hours without significant maintenance, but at that point they need some general maintenance. ie. filter checks/replacement, nozzle replacements and so on

 

The attached pic you will see 3000 HP that weighs 785 KGS. This is something a diesel will never come close to matching.

 

What is that turbine going into?

 

The irony of the whole turbine vs. diesel argument that has cropped up in recent weeks is very few involved in it seem to acknowledge that Ukraine already operates tanks with gas turbines in variants of the T-80. Most Ukrainian made T-80s are diesel while Russia went with the gas turbine in some of their variants, but Ukraine also had some domestic T-80 production that utilized turbine engines. It's likely they'd pull from their forces that already utilize these to train on the Abrams.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/01/19/ukrainian-paratroopers-prefer-their-speedy-t-80bv-tanks/?sh=364c461c2207

 

Also of note is Poland donating 60 of their PT-91s which are a modernized variant of the T-72 platform. While not to the same level as the western tanks Ukraine will receive in the coming months, they're likely quite a bit more capable than a lot of the other Russian variants on the battlefield currently.

 

And, almost completely lost in the news cycle of late that has focused on the tank debate, is the UK sending 600 more Brimstone missiles to Ukraine, arguably one of the most advanced weapon systems in Ukraine currently.